Dumbarton v Queens

[The Moonster]

I thought the ref got all the big calls right. The Burt penalty claim late on was a good tackle, defender just got his toe to the ball and no more.

Nisbet is complete gubbins. He has an excellent chance in the first half he absolutely fluffs and his only contribution other than sending the ball to the moon was luckily barging his way down the left hand side where we almost create a chance. Other than Dick's effort cleared off the line and that Nisbet chance we virtually create nothing in the first half. When the subs are made we actually look a threat and probably should score from Froxylias' chance but the keeper makes a decent save. Really frustrated about yesterday (and the Falkirk game). We basically have nothing to win in these next two Brechin games and everything to lose.

[cedrick1]

I thought nisbet was decent enough winning fair share in air and was best of front 4 of Russell Stewart handling and him but his legacy of the game will be the pen miss. 

Not dure the dubs made us any more/ less of a threat as threat suggests we look like scoring . 

And we don’t 

on the 90 like in other games we were in it but in the end got nothing as in other games.

unlike others I’m not fully committed to the froxy fan club 

 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

unlike others I’m not fully committed to the froxy fan club 
 

I don't think anyone is but of all the options available yesterday he has the most goals and has the ability to create something out of nothing.

To start with players like Handling, Russell and Nesbit ahead of him in a must win game is criminal. He's contributed more than the 3 of them combined this season. Stevie wont start him because he's scared to, all because he doesn't work as hard as others and wont track back as much. Mind you neither does Handling but for some reason he manages plenty of starts despite being absolutely bang average.

If you offered me Handling, Russell, Nesbitt or Froxy I know who I'd want in my team.

[BallochSonsFan]

Froxy has all the skill needed to be a very good player. He has a good touch, good vision and a powerful shot. Great at set pieces too.

What he lacks is toughness and application from a defensive side. Get a tough tackle on him early and he'll fade from the game for a period of time. Run at him and he'll back off, giving his full back very little protection. He's not going to fight to win the ball back.

It's arguable that with Hutton and Carswell in the side then we can carry Froxy because those 2 are all about grafting and closing down the opposition. They can do some of Foxy's dirty work for him. I'd much rather he was played in the proper number 10 role as I think he'd be better in a more central role and we could get wide men who will protect the full backs, allowing Carswell and Hutton to concentrate more on the middle of the park.

He's a good player with limitations in his game. It's why he's with us instead of a better team.

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

 

What he lacks is toughness and application from a defensive side. Get a tough tackle on him early and he'll fade from the game for a period of time. 

Agree with your post aside from this bit. He does lack the physicality that most of his opponents display and it's clear his enthusiasm for defending is close to zero, but I'm not sure I agree he hides in games when it gets a bit tough. He always looks for the ball I feel. Agree he should play as the central attacking midfielder, he doesn't need to use as much energy in there than on the wing and he's easily our most creative player. If he can only play 60 minutes then fine, he's capable of spanking one in even when he's knackered.

[Rjc-1988]

Let's put it this way In terms of losing a goal when we were 1-0 up I was much more concerned about Froxy and Burt than I was about what Hutton and Carswell.

This is the big problem with Scottish football it is physicality over skill and it is exactly the reason why our forays into Europe both at club and International level are now so embarrassing.

[squeezeboxson]

32 minutes ago, Rjc-1988 said:

Let's put it this way In terms of losing a goal when we were 1-0 up I was much more concerned about Froxy and Burt than I was about what Hutton and Carswell.

This is the big problem with Scottish football it is physicality over skill and it is exactly the reason why our forays into Europe both at club and International level are now so embarrassing.

I'd be worried if that wasn't the case. I was more worried about Stephen Dobbie than I was about your 'keeper... 

If what you mean is you were more concerned about Froxy and Burt than you were of Stewart and Russell or Nisbet and Nade then you would be making a valid point.

[Rjc-1988]

I'd be worried if that wasn't the case. I was more worried about Stephen Dobbie than I was about your 'keeper... 
If what you mean is you were more concerned about Froxy and Burt than you were of Stewart and Russell or Nisbet and Nade then you would be making a valid point.

Fair point but you guys have been complaining about your lack of goals. If you flood the team with guys who are great at "keeping the shape" you become hard to beat but inevitably struggle to create.

Not that we are much better - we do the same thing but rely on Dobbie to create and score. Without him we would be battling it out with you for 8th place.

[squeezeboxson]

1 hour ago, Rjc-1988 said:

 

Fair point but you guys have been complaining about your lack of goals. If you flood the team with guys who are great at "keeping the shape" you become hard to beat but inevitably struggle to create.

Not that we are much better - we do the same thing but rely on Dobbie to create and score. Without him we would be battling it out with you for 8th place.

 

Completely agree with that post. Said yesterday to a couple of the guys round about me that without him you guys would be battling down the bottom end.  We do need to find a better balance between being hard to beat and not being creative enough. As I said last night, we are pretty much now in a position where we have nothing to lose in taking some more risks.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Finally got round to watching the highlights.

First off I thought the ref actually had a decent game but IMO the challenge on Burt is a penalty. I've watched it back about 5 or 6 times and even put my face right up to the tv and I simply can't see Jacobs getting a touch on the ball. Not that I'm blaming our defeat on that, but that was a penalty. The fact I've had to watch it back, in slow mo, around 5 times now, means it wasn't clear cut.

Nesbitt's miss in the first half was a bigger sitter than I remembered. Liam Dick also had a fuckin golden chance.

Dom Thomas seems like a wee bawbag but that's a ripper of a strike for the goal. 

Finally, Dykes' hair do. More criminal than Aitken's shitebag team selections and tactics. He looks like that wee thing from The Moomans. Absolutely unacceptable.

 

[Skyline Drifter]

29 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

First off I thought the ref actually had a decent game but IMO the challenge on Burt is a penalty. I've watched it back about 5 or 6 times and even put my face right up to the tv and I simply can't see Jacobs getting a touch on the ball. Not that I'm blaming our defeat on that, but that was a penalty. The fact I've had to watch it back, in slow mo, around 5 times now, means it wasn't clear cut.

And yet, the ball goes away from the challenge in exactly the direction of Jacobs challenge and pretty much at right angles to Burt's. I dont think there's any serious doubt Jacobs does contact the ball. It couldnt go in the direction it did if it was only Burt. The question is does Jacobs contact Burt first? I dont think he does but its not certain and if we cant tell for sure after several slow mo looks on film then the referee, whose position is better than the camera, has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

And yet, the ball goes away from the challenge in exactly the direction of Jacobs challenge and pretty much at right angles to Burt's. I dont think there's any serious doubt Jacobs does contact the ball. It couldnt go in the direction it did if it was only Burt. The question is does Jacobs contact Burt first? I dont think he does but its not certain and if we cant tell for sure after several slow mo looks on film then the referee, whose position is better than the camera, has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Got to disagree. I've genuinely watched it over and over again and can't see Jacobs making any contact with the ball. I don't think ball changes direction dramamtically enough to make it conclusive. It barely changes direction at all.

 

As aluded to in my post above it was a very tough call to make and with referees not being robots it's the type of decision that can go either way. No massive complaints from me that it wasn't given.

 

Edited to add: I know what you mean about it changing direction a split second before the challenge, but for me it's Burt's foot who gets to it, not Jacobs. My "barely changes direction at all" comment was based on that.

[Benito Robles]

I actually thought the Sons played really well yesterday in difficult conditions. The first half especially when there was some neat attacking football on show. I think Sons fans are just a little harsh on their team given all the circumstances they encounter. Queens too were decent and all in all I thought the game was entertaining and good to watch. A proper game if you like. At the time the ref giving a penalty for the Burt incident would have been harsh and having a look at the tv footage I still think the same. Sons should have scored much earlier especially with the real penalty which to my mind really was harsh. Karma maybe?  

[gogs]

Clear tackle by Jacobs the ball clearly changes direction just gets a toe to it fantastic tackle also not convinced the penalty that was given should have been that's never a penalty

[Skyline Drifter]

55 minutes ago, gogs said:

Clear tackle by Jacobs the ball clearly changes direction just gets a toe to it fantastic tackle also not convinced the penalty that was given should have been that's never a penalty

I think the Dobbie handball is a penalty. He appears to raise his arm to stop the ball hitting his face. 

[Jan Vojáček]

Interesting (not really) wee thing I've noticed; every goal we've conceded to Queens this year has came from a dead ball. A header from a corner in August, a penalty and an own-goal from a corner in November and that free-kick yesterday.

[Nowhereman]

22 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Finally got round to watching the highlights.

First off I thought the ref actually had a decent game but IMO the challenge on Burt is a penalty. I've watched it back about 5 or 6 times and even put my face right up to the tv and I simply can't see Jacobs getting a touch on the ball. Not that I'm blaming our defeat on that, but that was a penalty. The fact I've had to watch it back, in slow mo, around 5 times now, means it wasn't clear cut.

Nesbitt's miss in the first half was a bigger sitter than I remembered. Liam Dick also had a fuckin golden chance.

Dom Thomas seems like a wee bawbag but that's a ripper of a strike for the goal. 

Finally, Dykes' hair do. More criminal than Aitken's shitebag team selections and tactics. He looks like that wee thing from The Moomans. Absolutely unacceptable.

 

Froxy's miss in the second half was poor too. For all you might say that our tactics were poor we had plenty of opportunities to score in that game.